Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT

ITA 2808/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2019AY 2013-14

…jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (CEA No. 1299/2008) dated 15.04.2008 which has not attained finality and not properly appreciating the ratio of decision in the case of Sahaney Steel and Press Works Ltd vs. CIT (1977) (228 ITR 253) (SC) which clearly laid down that the subsidy received after commencement of business without any specific instruction for its use towards the capital utilized for establishing the business constitutes revenue receipt. 2.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee had received industrial promotion subsidy of Rs.179,77,51,676/- from the G…

Jt. CIT. (OSD), Circle -7(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Vehicle Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Jt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Mahindra Vehicles Tax (Osd), Circle 7(2)(1), Vs. Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, P.K. Kurne Chowk Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm1217M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 Jt. Commissioner Of Income M/S Mahindra Vehicles Tax (Osd), Circle 7(2)(1), Vs. Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. Room No. 623, 6Th Floor, P.K. Kurne Chowk Worli, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400018. Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aafcm1217M Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/S Mahindra Vehicles Jt. Commissioner Of Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. P.K. Vs. Income Tax (Osd), Circle Kurne Chowk Worli, 7(2)(1), Room No. 623, 6Th Mumbai-400018. Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- 400020. Pan No. Aafcm1217M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Karthik Natrajan, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Manjunath Swami, CIT-DR

ITA 446/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Jul 2019AY 2012-13

…jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance Industries Ltd. (CEA No. 1299/2008) dated 15.04.2008 which has not attained finality and not properly appreciating the ratio of decision in the case of Sahaney Steel and Press Works Ltd vs. CIT (1977) (228 ITR 253) (SC) which clearly laid down that the subsidy received after commencement of business without any specific instruction for its use towards the capital utilized for establishing the business constitutes revenue receipt. 2.1 During the year under consideration, the assessee had received industrial promotion subsidy of Rs.179,77,51,676/- from the G…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune vs. M/S. Inox Air Products Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.446/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 11, Pune …. Vs. M/S. Inox Air Products Limited, Office No.4, 1St Floor, Solitaire, Pune-Nagar Road, Near Aga Khan Palace, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411006 Pan: Aaaci5569D अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S.B. Prasad प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar

For Appellant: Shri S.B. PrasadFor Respondent: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar

ITA 2235/KOL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2019AY 2013-14

…oduction and hence, was nothing but support given by the Government to augment the sources and profitability of assessee company. The Assessing Officer applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) 228 ITR 253 (SC) held that the said receipt was revenue receipt. It was further held by Assessing Officer that in both the cases, the assessee was required to pay sales tax to the Government and thereafter, it was refunded in the form of subsidies and thus, it was nothing but refund of sales tax paid by assessee and these were revenue in nature. 3 M/s. Inox…

Britannia Industries Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2235/Kol/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year:2013-14)

For Appellant: Priyanka Salarpuria, FCAFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 14ASection 14A(2)Section 92B

…e instance of the Department. There was a difference of opinion between the judicial member and the accountant member on the Appellate Tribunal. The judicial member relied on the dictum in the Supreme Court judgment at Sahney Steel & Press Works v. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 253/94 Taxman 368. The accountant member, however, relied on a more recent decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Ponni Sugars & Chemicals Ltd. [2008] 174 Taxman 87/306 ITR 392 to hold that the purpose of the grant of the subsidy would be the overwhelming consideration in ascertaining whether the subsidy or the money was to be treated as a capital r…

DCIT, Cir-11(1), Kolkata vs. M/S. Emami Biotech Ltd., Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1915/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…strial growth of industrially backward areas, it was in the nature of a capital receipt not chargeable to tax. 12. Reliance was placed on behalf of the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel Works Limited –vs.- CIT [228 ITR 253], wherein it was held that if the object of the assistance under the Subsidy Scheme was to enable the assessee to set up a new unit or expand the existing unit, then the receipt was on capital account. Reliance was also placed by the assessee on the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT –vs.- Rasoi Limited [335 ITR 438],…

DCIT, Circle-3(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 1774/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No.1774/Kol/2016 A.Y 2006-07 D.C.I.T, Cir-3(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd Pan: Aabcn 5428K (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) I.T.A No.1718/Kol/2016 A.Y 2007-08 A.C.I.T, C.C 4(1), Kolkata Vs. M/S. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd Pan: Aabcn 5428K (Appellant/Department) (Respondent/Assessee) For The Appellant : Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. Cit, Ld. Sr.Dr For The Respondent : Smt. Shikha Agarwal, Aca, Ld.Ar

For Appellant: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, ld. Sr.DRFor Respondent: Smt. Shikha Agarwal, ACA, ld.AR

ITA 1994/PUN/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

…y and the subsidy was only for running and maintenance 2 1718/K/16 A.Ys 2006-07 & 2007-08 M/s. Nilachal Iron & Power Ltd which was not of capital nature. In this regard the A.O, placed reliance upon the case of Sahney Steel And Press Works Limited And Others, 228 ITR 253 (SC) ,wherein it was held that in the case of subsidy whether by way of refund of sales tax or relief of electricity charges or water charges be treated as an aid to the setting up of the industry of the assessee. As we have seen earlier, the payments were to be made only if and when the assessee commenced its production. The said payments were m…

Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 12, Pune vs. Universal Construction Machinery and Equipment Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1994/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 12, Pune …. Vs. Universal Construction Machinery & Equipment Limited, Sr. No. 17/1B, Universal House, N.D.A. Road, Old Warje Jakat Naka, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Kothrud, Pune - 411038 Pan: Aaacu7808B

For Appellant: Shri Sudhendu DasFor Respondent: None

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

…d in the return of income by the assessee as revenue receipt to be treated as capital receipt and hence not taxable. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited and Ors (228 ITR 253) (SC) wherein essential conditions to be examined to determine as to whether any incentive received is to be treated as capital receipt or revenue receipt have been comprehensively laid down and the fact that the assessee had its own investments made from its own sources to become eligible for the Incentive Scheme of the state government and the…

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 7, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

ITA 6582/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

ITA 4518/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

…. The ITAT Delhi has, in their detailed order in this case held such subsidy to be revenue in nature. The present case is also squarely covered by the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. reported in [1997] 228 ITR 253/94 Taxman 368 (SC). The nature of subsidy has to be based on case specific facts. Therefore, in each case one has to examine the nature of subsidy. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. had observed that these subsidies were given to encourage the setting up of Industry in the State of Andhra Pradesh by making the…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

ITA 4517/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

…. The ITAT Delhi has, in their detailed order in this case held such subsidy to be revenue in nature. The present case is also squarely covered by the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. reported in [1997] 228 ITR 253/94 Taxman 368 (SC). The nature of subsidy has to be based on case specific facts. Therefore, in each case one has to examine the nature of subsidy. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. had observed that these subsidies were given to encourage the setting up of Industry in the State of Andhra Pradesh by making the…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

ITA 4516/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

…. The ITAT Delhi has, in their detailed order in this case held such subsidy to be revenue in nature. The present case is also squarely covered by the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. reported in [1997] 228 ITR 253/94 Taxman 368 (SC). The nature of subsidy has to be based on case specific facts. Therefore, in each case one has to examine the nature of subsidy. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sahney Steel & Press Works Ltd. had observed that these subsidies were given to encourage the setting up of Industry in the State of Andhra Pradesh by making the…

M/S Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are treated as partly allowed

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi